Facebook Censoring The British Medical Journal-An Action Of Monumental Consequence
The grim realities of an unchecked social media platform regulating scientific literature
A regional director named Brook Jackson working on Pfizer’s vaccine clinical trials blew the whistle about safety and data integrity issues through an article posted in the British Medical Journal.
Shortly after circulation, the article ended up being censored by Facebook. They claimed there was “missing content”.
Following that, a fiery response to Facebook from senior editors of the British Medical Journal challenged the accusation.
Finally, after no action from Facebook, BMJ released another article on 1/19/22 where the editor in chief Kamran Abbasi stated, “We should all be very worried that Facebook…is effectively censoring fully fact checked journalism…”
That said, this publication will explore the incident previously explained. Then after, address 3 critical questions regarding the future implications of Facebooks unchecked ability to censor and distribute medical information.
The censored evidence can be found below. To be precise, you will find exactly this:
The original BMJ article that was censored by Facebook
BMJ’s fiery response to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and fact checker’s on why the censorship was unjust
A 3rd response from BMJ to Facebook. This time from the editor and chief of BMJ
Sources
Here is the original BMJ article that generated heat: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Here is BMJ’s response to Facebook inappropriately censoring their article. Essentially, this is an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg and fact checkers from 2 senior editors of BMJ:
The 3rd explosive response from BMJ’s editor and chief to Facebook: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95
A brief summary in pictures
First, a summary in pictures of the initial letter that sparked the fire. As you can see below, photos were taken by the whistle blower so she could verify her claims. They revealed needles being inappropriately and unsafely stored after use, and exposure of patient data to researchers which unblinded the vaccine trial.
Also from the initial article- breach of trial protocol was observed. The points listed below explain how both safety and integrity of the trial were jeopardized. Specifics are underlined.
Second, here is BMJ’s fiery second letter to Facebook on censoring their thoroughly fact checked article. As BMJ is a medical journal, any studies or articles they post are rigorously check, and peer reviewed. After all, they publish topnotch medical papers doctors and nurses use to guide their clinical practice.
Third, BMJ released another article named “Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong” that covered some dialogue between BMJ and a Facebook fact checker agency. Alan Duke, editor of a fact checking agency for Facebook named Lead Stories, says he will not amend his claims against the BMJ publication. Meaning, Duke stands by his executive decision which allows the article to be continually censored with a tag stating “missing information”. All that because Duke felt it was fueling “the antivaxx narrative….”
Also from the same article -BMJ editor in chief fires back at Alan Duke. Essentially, he claimed the public should be worried if under qualified fact checkers continue making judgments on medical journal data.
So thats the story. However, there are now 3 important questions that need answering 👇
3 Critical questions
Q1: What is social media coming to if under-qualified fact checkers are barring citizens access to some of the most prestigious and reputable sources of worldly scientific data that drive medicine?
A: Today it seems these large platforms are attempting to be the arbiters of factual medical information. Ironically, in doing so they end up being the ones spreading misinformation because they contract under credentialed individuals that are unable to critically appraise complicated medical literature. Such a dangerous game to play with science.
Moreover, since the pandemic medicine has become heavily politicized. As a result, censorship by Facebook has created a serious problem with public health, medicine, and politics. All and all, if this continues further the media giant could become the largest propaganda arm of political and medical information who’s censorship will in turn unjustly swing elections, public health policy, and lead individuals to make bad personal health decisions. After all, if the data is stifled one can’t possibly make an accurate, safe, or informed decision regarding health or politics.
Q2: Who fact checks the fact checkers?
A: The past 2 years have revealed a plethora of regulatory inadequacies specifically relating to digital media agencies that answer to no one. Social media platforms having no oversight bring to the table 2 significant issues for the public:
Corruption of information: Investors will likely have an impact on what health information is pedaled to users by social media giants. After all, they are the ones paying the big bucks so they will ultimately have leverage in the data that’s pushed.
The problem, investors/lobbyists have medical biases, and owe people favors. Those favors and biases could influence the kind and quality of information made available to people on the platform. That said, people make decisions based on that filtered information. Such a factor plays a major role in duplicitously changing public health policy.
Restriction of communication: Many people use social media as their main, or only source of communication (talking to family, friends, employers). Sadly, if one doesn’t agree with the mainstream narrative set by the platform and promotes alternative ideas deemed “not factual”, or inappropriate, they may be cut off from their only, or main source of conference.
We know through history that tyrannical governments are often the result of unchecked power. That is why the United States government separates into three different branches which closely monitor and balance each other. It’s not perfect, but such a measure ensures things are not substantially worse than they currently are. Sadly, this is not true for Facebook so the door is wide open for tyranny.
Q3: Does unchecked power leave the door open for social media giants to host their own medical/social service arm?
A: In recent years for example, Facebook has attempted to act as a social service provider affording people access to medical services, and equipment by partnering and investing with different US health organizations. If such a social service arm takes off and society heavily depends on Facebook for access to essential medical services and equipment, could access be denied if a users conflicting opinion violates the user agreement? For how long would they be denied essential services? Would being barred prevent them from seeking services elsewhere?
It is clear these companies need regulators and not internal ones. Such regulators would ensure the welfare of citizens utilizing their platforms. Of course, there would be formal rules for these media giants to follow and disciplinary action executed in the event they became non-compliant.
Be that as it may, these days it seems unchecked social media platforms are a problem for public health policy, and a barrier to accurate health information. That being the case, the following quote seems relevant, “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” -C.S. Lewis
LETS CONNECT:
Excellent piece.